The Marine Commandant, Gen. Berger, is force feeding a massive makeover onto the Marines and it’s not going over very well, to say the least. Outside of his inner circle of sycophants, he appears to have little buy in for his ideas. Outside groups and individuals, such as ComNavOps, have expressed nothing but scorn and ridicule for his concepts and the Commandant has, lately, taken on an almost whiny air of arrogance and self-pity. To be fair, relatively few details have been released and lots of hand-waving of problems has occurred which has led outsiders to engage in speculation which may or may not be correct. The lack of communication from Berger is a fatal flaw considering that he’s trying to sell a new product. If you want to sell something, you have to provide at least some basic information and Berger has thus far declined to do so. It’s no wonder, then, that he’s not getting much buy in.
In any event, Berger continues to add to his stream of baffling ideas. For example, his latest is an Amazon-like supply system for forward deployed Marine units. In his words,
“Why couldn’t we use the logistics laydown of something like Amazon, their distribution centers, for our expeditionary basing operations? (1)
Aside from the fact that the military already has equipment and parts distribution centers, the concept of using some kind of delivery-on-demand Amazon system ignores (hand waves away) the problem of finding a survivable platform that can penetrate enemy controlled or contested air and sea to reach the forward base to deliver the needed supply. Amazon doesn’t usually have to fight through enemy territory to make their deliveries so the analogy falls apart.
In addition, the sheer volume of supplies needed to sustain a forward base or unit precludes the small delivery system (ultimately, small delivery trucks that deliver small, individual packages) that Amazon is based on. Sustaining military units engaged in active combat requires large shiploads of supplies on a frighteningly regular basis. This kind of large cargo ship is not stealthy, not fast, not maneuverable, and undefended – in other words, what the military would call a big, fat target. There’s also the issue of unloading delivered supplies. Amazon drivers toss small packages off their trucks. Shiploads of supplies require docks, cranes, cargo handling, trucks, and lots of manpower. Again, the analogy falls apart.
Does Berger not understand any of this or does he just throw ideas at the wall to see if anything will stick? If he has some specific concept that would address the obvious problems then he needs to provide at least a basic description if he wants buy in.
Here’s another new idea from the Commandant regarding hand held intel systems:
Our intel, I think, can be stored, sorted and downloaded from a cloud for our forward-deployed forces. And a control system for all those things could be in a hand-held device the size of our phones, all the way down to the squad leader, since all the forces are going to be distributed. (1)
We’ve repeatedly discussed the difficulties of establishing a network and maintaining communications in an electromagnetically (and kinetically!) challenged environment. Does anyone really see China allowing us to establish a cloud based intel system in a forward combat area? China appears to be decades ahead of us in cyber warfare and I can’t see them allowing an unhindered cloud system in a combat theatre. Does Berger really think this is viable or is he, again, just throwing stuff at the wall?
Berger kind of understands his failure to communicate as evidenced by his statement,
Berger noted in his opening remarks that “we lost time in development and experimentation due to lack of funding for some long-range precision fires capabilities because of trust. And that’s on me, I have to do a better job with key members on the Hill to reassure them that this is the necessary direction for the future of the Marine Corps. In some cases, they believe we’re moving too fast,” he said. (1)
Despite this apparent recognition, he still isn’t offering any useful information and continues to spew out highly questionable ideas with no explanation.
On the other hand, Berger seems to believe that he has Congress’ support.
Later in the event, he said in response to a USNI News question that the Fiscal Year 2021 budget cycle indicated to him that lawmakers are on board with the general direction the Marine Corps is moving … (1)
I’ve seen nothing to indicate such support and I think Berger is delusional and is seeing what he wants to see.
Berger’s behavior has all the characteristics of the ‘smartest man in the room’ syndrome. He, and he alone, can see the Truth and the rest of us need to quietly follow him. The problem with this, historically, is that those who believe they’re the ‘smartest man in the room’ are, invariably, not the smartest man and, all too often, turn out to be the dumbest man in the room. Unless your name is Einstein, you probably aren’t the smartest man in the room!
_____________________________________
(1)USNI News website, “Berger: Marines Need to Trust Unmanned, AI Tools for Future Warfare”, Megan Eckstein, 2-Feb-2021,
https://news.usni.org/2021/02/02/berger-marines-need-to-trust-unmanned-ai-tools-for-future-warfare
"Our intel, I think, can be stored, sorted and downloaded from a cloud for our forward-deployed forces."
ReplyDeleteQuestion: What's stopping the ENEMY from downloading OUR intel from a cloud, and knowing everything we know? Are our military intelligence networks secure?
"And a control system for all those things could be in a hand-held device the size of our phones..."
Phones are fragile, liable to break and become useless upon impact against hard surfaces- or when hard surfaces impact them, e.g., a bullet hits them. Touchscreen controls can be imprecise, as anyone who plays mobile games knows; this imprecision can have DISASTROUS consequences if the controls are used to aim, launch, and guide weapons.
How much reinforcement will this handheld device need, to withstand the rigors of the field? How much more expensive will this device then be? How few devices will we then be able to afford? Will the control system end up like ammunition for the Zumwalt class destroyer's advanced gun system, too expensive to procure in the necessary numbers, and ultimately cancelled?
Why didn't Berger ask himself these same questions? Did he earn his position by being sycophant to Donald Rumsfeld when the latter disastrously attempted to "transform" the US military and let it "skip a generation" in technology?
To be fair to the Zumwalt, just think if we had built 30 Zummies, great we have NGFS. Then Commandant reveals no more invasions requiring NGFS. Yes, the ship would still have uses, but still. What is the plan for the Gator Navy, make escort carriers out of them ?
ReplyDeleteWell, you can't do landings off of them, so why not?
Delete"so why not?"
DeleteThe 'why not' is because the F-35B is a very limited aircraft. We heard the Ford program director talk about the extreme limitations of the 'B'. Of course, this is the same guy who thought the Ford and Dual Band Radar was a great idea so …
Still, the 'B' is limited in range (1/3 of the 'A' fuel volume and weapons lift. The short take off limits payload carry, according the director.
So, a very expensive ship with a large crew and high operating costs just to bring 20 or so substandard, limited aircraft to the fight? That's not a good use of resources. Now, if we want to try to convert the amphibs to true escort carriers that could operate 'C's and carry around 40 aircraft, then we'd possibly have something but the conversion costs would be staggering.
The Marines spent a lot of money and effort developing the V-22 and CAC2s, and held their noses for the F35, and they work pretty good. They also need a lot of equipment and supplies to work. Same with their tube arty.
ReplyDeleteBut during the Pacific campaigns the commandant envisions, it will likely be just the Corps doing that work. The army will be trying to save Little America Humphries in Korea, and the Navy wants to do navy stuff, not park a task force off the Marine's islands.
So he wants to get rid of most of his tubes, and most helos and air command and control equipment, and most attack and air defense aircraft.
Somehow he has convinced himself his Marine Corps will consist of scattered companies with rifles (no squad automatic weapons), no real tube arty left, and a few cobbled together technical type trucks but with missiles and no reloads.
So his amazon fantasy works there, since they will need some more MREs, some ammo, and some batteries. And every week or so some new water filters.
Meanwhile, the PLANMC is rolling in heavy brigades, heavier than a 1980s USMC unit, with lots of air cover.
I don't even think it will be a slaughter. I figure the smart company commander will surrender as soon as he sees the PLANMC units.
As for the commandant, think this TV show quote is on point: "Sometimes when I try to understand a person's motives, I play a little game. I assume the worst. What's the worst reason they could possibly have for saying what they say and doing what they do? Then I ask myself, 'How well does that reason explain what they say and what they do?'
I think there are two possible explanations:
ReplyDelete1) Berger and the other USMC top brass are all blooming idiots; or
2) Their decisions are constrained externally to picking the least bad of a bunch of bad choices.
Interestingly, I also visit War on the Rocks, which self-styles itself as, "National Security. For insiders. By insiders," and does in fact include a number of contributors who are obviously on the inside. Over there, the prevailing opinion seems to be very clearly that Berger is doing the right thing and it is exactly where the Marines should be headed. I suppose if you hang around inside the Blob long enough, you become consumed with group think.
But I think the restricted choice argument has a lot of merit as well. I see two external factors:
1) In going to large-deck LHAs/LHDs as amphibs, the Navy has pretty much put the Marines out of the amphibious assault business. Back in the 1970s, those of us in the Gator Navy thought that this was putting too many eggs in one basket, so that one lucky missile or torpedo could wipe out your whole assault. When the Navy realized this, they came up with this doctrine that the LHAs/LHDs would stand 25-50 miles offshore. That maybe helps protect them from a shore-based missile with a 25 mile range, but not sure it does much to help against longer range missiles--or torpedoes. But anyway, that's the doctrine. From that far out, there is no effective ship-shore connector for tanks and heavy artillery--boats are too slow, helos and V-22s cannot lift the load, and LCACs have proved too unreliable for combat. So Berger has decided that if the Marines can't get tanks and heavy artillery ashore, they will just go without them.
2) Part of the reason why the Marines ignored the above for so long is that they were busy becoming a baby Army with a baby Air Force. Or, as someone reported that his daughter asked him, "Daddy, why does the Navy's Army need an Air Force?" This started in Vietnam when Westmoreland sent the Marines north to I Corps rather than south to the Mekong Delta, where they could have formed a potent riverine force with the Navy. That was a real head scratcher for those of us in WestPac in those days. The Marines have spent 50-60 years taking one baby Army mission after another in order to stay relevant, and to keep their headcount (and budget) up.
Today they are fighting arguments about why don't we just merge them into the Army. Unless they bring something distinctive to the table, keeping them separate is a hard argument to make. So Berger comes up with a bunch of off-the-wall proposals--things the Army apparently doesn't want to do because they know they are stupid. This is not about combat, this is about budget and retaining a separate identity.
From my active time working with both, I will admit that I have a lot of admiration for both the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. When the RMs were faced with budgetary extinction after WWII, they made themselves into expeditionary/amphibious and commando specialists. Today they are a very small, elite organization. Going that route would result in a much smaller USMC, but it would be a more focused, elite organization.
"Going that route would result in a much smaller USMC, but it would be a more focused, elite organization."
DeleteAnd an obviously more USEFUL one.
"but it would be a more focused, elite organization."
DeleteSmaller … yes
more focused … maybe
elite … dubious
One of the problems that Marines have succumbed to is the socialization of the Corps with gender norming, female integration, diversity emphasis, and so on. You can scale down as far as you want but unless you get rid of those influences, you won't be elite. Small size does not guarantee either focus or elite status. It only guarantees smallness and, likely, irrelevance in a peer war.
"One of the problems that Marines have succumbed to is the socialization of the Corps with gender norming, female integration, diversity emphasis, and so on. You can scale down as far as you want but unless you get rid of those influences, you won't be elite. Small size does not guarantee either focus or elite status. It only guarantees smallness and, likely, irrelevance in a peer war."
DeleteWomen in the military is going to be given. How you deal with it matters. Israel seems to have done okay with it. We largely haven't. Study what they did to get better ideas of how to handle it.
One thing, everybody meets the same qualification standards. You don't water down tests for combat positions. If not enough women pass to meet somebody's quota, then not enough women get in.
My vague understanding is that women in Israel are relegated to combat adjacent units (logistics, guard/patrol, etc.) rather than front line combat. For example, I read about an all female unit but it's not front line combat. We see pictures of women in tanks but I've never read that they actually see combat.
DeleteAs I said, I have only a vague grasp of how the female issue. Maybe a reader has better knowledge.
The US Marines have proven that women drag down the performance of mixed units and are non-competitive on their own. Unless you're willing to ban women from combat units, you won't have an elite Corps.
Even the notion that just a very few women will meet standards but that, if they do, we should give them full access to all combat positions is nonsense. That would result in one woman in a company or battalion and then we'd have to make all kinds of accommodations that are all out of proportion to the dubious benefit. We need to either ban women and be done with it or form dedicated all female units, as Israel did, so that every unit doesn't have to make ridiculous accommodations for very few women.
"Women in the military is going to be given. … One thing, everybody meets the same qualification standards."
I chuckle at that. On the one hand, you acknowledge reality by stating that women are a given. Then, you turn around and invoke pure fantasy that everyone will meet the same non-watered down standards. So, which are you going with, reality or fantasy?
"Even the notion that just a very few women will meet standards but that, if they do, we should give them full access to all combat positions is nonsense."
DeleteNope, that's not what I'm saying. See what Israel does and emulate that. Maybe you only let women into support units. Or maybe you allow in only the very few who meet the standards set for men.
"I chuckle at that. On the one hand, you acknowledge reality by stating that women are a given. Then, you turn around and invoke pure fantasy that everyone will meet the same non-watered down standards. So, which are you going with, reality or fantasy?"
Sorry, I realized after I posted that the way I wrote the comment about same qualification standards could be misinterpreted, but there is no way to edit commments on here. Sure enough, somebody did. Set one standard based on operational requirements, and everybody has to pass that.
If you are a girl who can compete with the boys, then you go girl. If you are a boy who can't, sucks to be you. Don't water down standards, have one set of standards and if you don't meet them you don't make the cut. Maybe you can go combat support, but not combat.
"If you are a girl who can compete with the boys, then you go girl."
DeleteNO! You missed the point about numbers. Let's be realistic and acknowledge that if we don't lower standards and if we're trying to keep the Marines elite then maybe one out of a thousand who meet the requirements will be a woman (that's probably too high but I'm feeling generous). Do you propose upending every unit just to accommodate a single female's needs and privacy? Or, do you propose side by side showers, heads, etc. with absolutely no more privacy than the men have from each other?
The problems and accommodations required for one female out of a thousand soldiers is simply not economically or operationally justifiable. There is absolutely no benefit gained from having women and many disadvantages. How do you justify accepting women? The military is NOT the place for social equality. The military is the place for ruthless efficiency and women in combat don't enhance military efficiency. So justify it, if you can.
I say look at Israel and see what they do.
DeleteI am well aware that one distinguishing feature about Israel is that they are facing imminent destruction from all sides at any time, and therefore the motivation is typically much higher. I would, however, expect that if the Marines return to their, "The few, the proud," concept, then only highly motivated women would apply, so there would be some similarity. If one in a thousand, or fewer, women qualify, then there would be no need for every unit to have women, since units are typically much smaller than one thousand, and in the commando/amphibious/expeditionary USMC that I am envisioning, the focus would be on smaller unit operations, and few if any units would be anywhere near that size.
For that matter, look at what the Royal Marines are doing. They also have women, and they are a truly ruthless and elite organization. I don't believe they had any women in combat roles in the Falklands, but they clearly had women in support roles.
One organization that interests me is the Royal Marines Band. They have women, and lots of them. Unlike the US "President's Own" band, they actually have combat support functions. They were in the Falklands, they had the second highest casualty rate (after bomber command) in WWII, and one of their conductors received a citation for combat in Kosovo. They are not commandos, as are the rest of the RMs, but they perform combat support functions.
Politically, I don't think any military organization is going to be able to exclude women altogether (at this point, I think it will be a major accomplishment to exclude transsexuals and all that entails) so I think your approach is DOA in congress. But I do think we can make it strictly merit-based, particularly in elite organizations. So study Israel, and study the Royal Marines, and figure out how to do it. And if no women qualify, then no women qualify, and we live with that.
One thought I just had. Organizationally, the RMs are a type command in the Royal Navy. That's pretty much what the USMC was until WWII. Maybe if we went to more of that concept here, it would be easier to impose higher standards on women. The Navy can maintain higher standards for SEALs, and no woman has ever become a SEAL (although one of my former fullbacks has that as a goal), but they can get away with it because it's not the whole Navy that is excluding women.
Delete"if no women qualify, then no women qualify, and we live with that."
DeleteAgain, you're picking and choosing which aspects of reality and fantasy to use. You note the reality of women in combat but invoke the fantasy of equal standards. We've already seen in all the services that standards have been adjusted down to allow women to pass and have been gender-normed to inflate the capabilities of women. That's the reality. If you choose to ignore that then you're in the fantasy world, which is fine, but then use the fantasy to simply say no women in combat.
I would also point out that the philosophy of 'if no women qualify then we live with that' is pure fantasy and would no more be accepted by Congress or the military than my approach. In fact, we've already seen that the military has dictated that women will pass various courses like Rangers and others. It's only a matter of time until some admiral dictates that a woman become a SEAL. You think my approach is fantasy and couldn't happen but your philosophy of equal standards and if no woman passes, so be it, is even more fantasy! Don't bother arguing with me … all the things you'd like to happen have already been shot down our military. We have female/diversity quotas, lowered standards, gender-normed results, and forced passing of courses. Argue with reality, not me!
Your plan has zero chance of producing an elite Marine organization without a heavy dose of fantasy!
"The Navy can maintain higher standards for SEALs, ... but they can get away with it because it's not the whole Navy that is excluding women."
DeleteHey, that's a thought! Similarly, the Army Rangers can maintain their … uh …
Face it, when an admiral or general wants a woman to pass, they'll pass and it's already happened throughout the military.
"Your plan has zero chance of producing an elite Marine organization without a heavy dose of fantasy!"
DeleteIn the present environment, probably not. But I say we change the environment.
"But I say we change the environment."
DeleteOkay, you're in the fantasy realm of an idealized world. Nothing wrong with that. So why not go all the way and ban women from combat? That would solve a LOT of problems like standards, combat efficiency, etc.
"Okay, you're in the fantasy realm of an idealized world."
DeleteWhere there is a will to get it done, there is a way. Tighten standards for everyone. If no women pass, then no women pass.
"Where there is a will to get it done, there is a way."
DeleteThere is no more will to tighten standards than there is to ban women from combat. If you believe you can do one then you can do the other. If you believe one is impossible then so is the other. Be consistent in your logic/fantasy.
I'm not saying the will is there now. I'm saying it could--and should--be.
Delete"Women in the military is going to be given."
DeleteI'm not saying the will to ban women from combat is there now. I'm saying it could--and should--be.
I'm very well aware that requiring women to meet the same standards as men could have the effect of no women in combat. I'm saying that I'm fine with that.
DeleteIf we have learned anything over the past two years, it is that "Just in time" logistics aren't.
ReplyDeleteYou know, your thought about "just in time" and the latest jargon to save money was what I've been wondering about: have we reached a point where the "military requirements" have become incompatible with our economic system?!? Capitalism in America and West is extremely lean, no inventory, very short optics, worry about stock price etc....this POV is pretty much against what the military needs: lots of inventory, spares, extra capacity, assets for the future needs, long term planning,etc... wonder how moving forward this gets resolved?
DeleteI ran into this exact issue as an airman maintaining 20-30 year old bomber components (IE the new stuff for B-52s, or the original stuff for the "new" B-2s.)
DeleteIdiot (IE efficiency focused) commanders kept trying to get us to turn in irreplaceable'spare' parts. Parts that the Supply system would scrap (if no one ordered them)in less than a year. Parts that we knew our equipment usually needed a new one every 3-5 years.
I had to explain to an officer that you can't just buy a replacement HP1000 computer at Best Buy. Then I explained that the 'new' one I ordered would probably come in dead, and I would use it and my dead unit to cobble together a single functioning machine.
"Idiot (IE efficiency focused) commanders kept trying to get us to turn in irreplaceable'spare' parts. Parts that the Supply system would scrap (if no one ordered them)in less than a year. Parts that we knew our equipment usually needed a new one every 3-5 years."
DeleteI'm shaking my head at the fact the US government isn't subsidizing the businesses that manufacture these spare parts, so the military has the parts necessary to keep its combat systems in working order. If that seems too tempting a target for corruption, then the government should simply build its own factories to produce the necessary components.
The whole concept of what the next war looks like is completely ahistorical and easily unfolds under minimal analysis.
ReplyDeleteLook at this for example: https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/03/fighting-the-last-war-that-never-happened/
There is a fine line - a balance, if you will - between fighting the last war and ignoring the lessons of the last war. We need to prepare for the next war while keeping the lessons of the last war firmly in mind. Currently, we're doing neither.
DeleteI think one problem is the military is trying so hard to go the civilian tech route without realizing anymore the significant differences between civil and military. Ex of Amazon or Fed Ex, some of the ideas and methods might work for the military but it sounds to me like the military is trying to just transpose AMZN for their logistics without realizing all the difference. Ex: smartphones yes, they are great and probably can and will be useful to some combat operations but let's not forget how easy they are to HACK and TRACK!!! Giving everyone a smartphone sounds great until the Chinese or even soon enough a terrorist group can track US troops and drop rounds on target....this has already happened in Ukraine.
DeleteI'm afraid our military has forgotten it's different from the civil world and it's requirements!!!
The problem for Berger is the damn Chinese aren't cooperating! Every picture of their Marines is just new nd more heavy gear. Said it before, saying it again: they both can't be right when we eventually clash....I'm afraid Chinese heavy armor/artillery with judicious use of cyber/hacking/ECM will run over light USMC.
ReplyDeleteThe enlisted and company grade officers will use esprit as they charge with their rifles. Into PLANMC arty, SAWs, and armored vehicles.
DeleteThe field grade officers and generals will be in the air conditioned bunkers in Hawaii criticizing how the troops die, as they plan that evening's cocktail party on the K-Bay O club patio.
"The enlisted and company grade officers will use esprit as they charge with their rifles. Into PLANMC arty, SAWs, and armored vehicles.
Delete"The field grade officers and generals will be in the air conditioned bunkers in Hawaii criticizing how the troops die, as they plan that evening's cocktail party on the K-Bay O club patio."
You hit the nail in the head. The US education system is becoming increasingly classist, and thus, useless in the real world- how else do we explain why schoolteachers are giving SIX-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN lessons on how to masturbate (read https://www.foxnews.com/us/dalton-parents-masturbation-videos-first-graders if you dare)?
That is sadly relevant to the topic. Children who attend lessons like that, are unlikely to grow up with any understanding of the costs of war. They may find offense in China's refusal to "affirm transgender rights" or other nonsense, and demand the US wage war for that reason- a war in which we'll fight alone, as potential allies in the region are just as conservative regarding such matters, meaning we'll end up alienating them with excessive demands- getting people killed for no good reason.
Let's stick to naval matters, please. Thanks.
Delete"The enlisted and company grade officers will use esprit as they charge with their rifles. Into PLANMC arty, SAWs, and armored vehicles."
DeleteIronically that's the same concept that the Japanese used when fighting better equipped Marines and other western troops in the last world war.
And we all know how that worked out.
" The US education system"
DeleteMultiple comments deleted. Keep the discussion on naval matters, please.
"...lawmakers are on board with the general direction the Marine Corps is moving … (1)"
ReplyDeleteIm suprised by this, and am wondering how true it is. There are folks in Congress who were very vocally opposed to the CVN early retirement. Where were they when Berger pitched dumping the armor and artillery?? Did anyone question that idiocy?? Were there any inquiries about wargaming and proof-of-concept?? While the Marines and Navy are wallowing in bad decisions and the consequences, are the lawmakers blindly agreeing, or is there/will there be any pushback??
I don't think Congress is in agreement as much as the Commandant thinks. I think he's hearing what he wants to hear and filtering out the rest.
Delete“A little neglect may breed mischief: for want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the rider was lost.”
ReplyDelete- Benjamin Franklin
“You realize when shoeing the horse that the shoe may be thrown-possibly causing the horse to run, so you have a mule on standby to get the rider to the war.”
- Capt John P. Laverdure, Scott Air Force Base, HQ Air Mobility Command, 1996
This is a very relevant discussion, and one I don't see often enough, in the public domain anyway.
I believe that, historically, armed forces were slightly reluctant to learn lessons from civilian logistics in an industrialised world pre-WW2. Now, it seems as if they want to over-learn civilian lessons.
As CNO and others state, but cannot be over-stated, modern "Just-In-Time" logistics rely on relatively predictable demand and (their core assumption) functioning Law and Order (ie relatively few people trying to run off or otherwise interfere with your goods). Walmart's meterological centre (or Waffle House's legendary preparedness) is perhaps one of the best examples of flexible peacetime logistics, but even so they get several days advance warning, and changes involve a geographical region limited in scope.
In warfare, potentially millions of people want your deliveries to fail and are prepared to risk bodily harm to ensure it. And we don't get days of advance warning.
We have seen modern "Just-in-Time" (ie "Minimum Cost") logistics fail from far smaller upsets than an enemy may cause. DHL failing to deliver enough chicken to KFC over the entire UK for many days in 2018 is a well-known example, and that was with unchanged demand for goods and relatively minor road delays, perhaps the equivalent of a single large bombstrike on a critical intersection. However, all that happened is that customers had to go elsewhere for their fast food for a while, so it wasn't an unreasonable margin of error.
A civilian model works well for peacetime, but current examples have no-where near the margin of error wartime contingencies will require. And I worry that saving money in peacetime will lead to failure in war.
Most great disasters are the result of a fool with the courage of his convictions.
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
"Berger’s behavior has all the characteristics of the ‘smartest man in the room’ syndrome. He, and he alone, can see the Truth and the rest of us need to quietly follow him. The problem with this, historically, is that those who believe they’re the ‘smartest man in the room’ are, invariably, not the smartest man and, all too often, turn out to be the dumbest man in the room. Unless your name is Einstein, you probably aren’t the smartest man in the room!"
ReplyDeleteFrequently a problem with military organizations.
I think maybe we have been picking on Commandant Berger too much, so SecNav has decided to take some of the pressure off with a "hold my beer" directive that makes Berger look like a genius by comparison.
ReplyDeletehttps://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20803082/secnav-pom-23_1.pdf